Comparison of the Foreign Policies of Mussolini and Hitler until 1939

With the end of WWI multiple problems surfaced. Fascism took a form under the name of Mussolini, followed by Hitler as well. Communism ruled in the east, and the fear of it in the west, was strong. The League of Nations, the few lasting remains of the Treaty of Versailles, seemed to be shattering while wars continued on. Thus it came down to the individual powers to try to keep the few remaining strands of peace together. With the rise of new powers this became more and more difficult especially with the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. Their way of action was usually far more drastic then England or France would have liked. To that their foreign policies were mostly focused on their own gains and not that of international peace. Until 1939, the foreign policies of Hitler and Mussolini were both mainly motivated by nationalism using the means of militarism, imperialism, and alliances to enforce these nationalistic foreign policies.

Why both Mussolini and Hitler acted at certain times in certain ways has been discussed by multiple historians. Some think that both had fixed agendas and followed them all the way through. Other saw them as opportunists and took every chance they had. However the nationalistic goals were there and can be clearly traced through their actions.

For Mussolini and Hitler there was nothing more important than their countries. Thus both of their foreign policies were motivated by the main leading cause of nationalism. Mussolini having risen to power already in the 1920s had nationalistic aims to make Italy greater. He wanted to return Italy to its former Roman Empire glory. This meant increasing Italian landholdings, resources, and economic as well as militaristic strength. It also meant connections to greater powers. These actions can be seen by his expansions into Abyssinia and Albania as well as his method of autarky (economic self-sufficiency). Even his links with U.S. one of the rising powers of the time made it clear that Mussolini was aiming for Italy to become a world power once again.

Hitler also had similar nationalistic aims, focusing on German glory. Although in his original plans he wished to claim the old colonies lost after WWI, he decided for a more realistic goal of expansion to the east. The unity of the German people, revision of the Treaty of Versailles, economic strength (also the idea of autarky), military strength, and alliances with great powers (Britain was a possibility here) included some of his aims.

All these aims can be reflected back upon each of these members in their actions of foreign policy, using the means of militarism, imperialism, and alliances.

Of course there is the counterargument that neither Hitler nor Mussolini had any plans. In truth they were just opportunists. Not even their nationalistic parties had an influence on their actions. Rather they were focused on gaining glory for themselves.

From a Revisionists viewpoint, the aims of fascism can be seen as forever changing. As Mommsen in his book “National Socialism: Continuity and Change” puts it: “It is questionable… whether National Socialist foreign policy can be considered as an unchanging pursuit of established priorities.” He then goes on to say that “Hitler’s foreign policy aims…knew no bounds.” A counterfactualist would question that what if Mussolini had not risen to power at all and therefore created fascism, would Hitler even have existed? What if there never would have been either leader, would their still have been such a nationalistic focused foreign policy of each respective country?

The first method used by both Mussolini and Hitler to accomplish their nationalistic foreign policies was militarism.

Mussolini wanted a glorified Italy, and for this he needed to expand. However to expand he needed an army, and a strong one. This is why he started to build his army. Italy had been looked down upon during the Washington Naval Conference, limiting its naval power. Why should Mussolini abide to this? In order to gain more resources, to return Italy to its former glory, Mussolini needed an army, thus he started to rearm.

Hitler had similar feelings. In the Treaty of Versailles Germany had been given a limited amount of army, no air force, and no navy. To that the Rhineland area had to stay a demilitarized zone. This was enough to cause problems for any nationalistic aims for a greater Germany. If the own land was not even fully controlled by a German army, how could one ever hope to expand to the east?

Another important aspect which shows that the nationalistic aims of the foreign policies were converted by militarism was the Spanish Civil War. With the aid of Mussolini and Hitler, Franco was able to rise in Spain. Of course both Italy and Germany would be happy about an ally in the west however this was not their major goal. For Hitler, what better place was there than the Spanish Civil War to test his military machine, especially new inventions such as rockets? For any foreign policies aims of expanding Germany, Hitler needed to have a well-trained army, and he needed to be sure it could work. Mussolini had other aims in the Spanish Civil War. While he too may have been testing his army, he most importantly wanted to have glory in war for Italy. To show the might of Italy to the rest of the world. Thus both countries used militarism to prepare their countries for further goals of their nationalistic foreign policies.

A counterargument to the whole idea of militarism playing a role in the foreign policies of Mussolini and Hitler is that since all of their aims were more based on expansion, this could be achieved through clever political games. Therefore the main focus was actually was gaining political strength not military strength.

The actions of both Mussolini and Hitler can be analyzed from different viewpoints of historians. For example from a militaristic historian viewpoint, Hitler and Mussolini were only able to pursuit political as well as physical land goals (nationalistic goals) with military power.  A cliometric historian in contrast would credit the fast growing economies of both countries to the aggressive foreign polices of Mussolini and Hitler. Since only through this economic upswing could they guarantee their polices a success and keep a happy home front.

With the full aid of militarism, Mussolini and Hitler, following their nationalistic foreign policy aims of expansion and greatness of their countries, decided to follow a path of Imperialism. This was however not possible without the militaristic strengths and actions mentioned before.

One of the most similar actions both Mussolini and Hitler take are that of protectorates. Albania for Italy became a protectorate in 1926. For Germany, it was Czechoslovakia (for a short time). Both had the wish to expand and both used whatever means necessary. A small difference can be found though: Italy was focused on colonies while Germany wished more for expansion within Europe.

Interesting to note is that the foreign policy aims of both are first done through political means and then by military force. Hitler first receives the Sudetenland through the Munich Conference, a clear political tactic. However then he continues to invade the rest of Czechoslovakia, to the great horror of its citizens.

Italy follows the same steps. Forming Albania as a protectorate in 1926, Mussolini then invades it directly in April of 1939.

Other imperialist actions taken by Mussolini for his nationalistic foreign policy aims is the invasion of Ethiopia. Having lost before to this country, Italy did not wish to keep this humiliation unaddressed. To that, the imperialistic wish to expand further and gain more resources, had a clear factor as well.

Hitler in contrast, has no wish to expand outside of Europe and therefore could not solely rely on military actions. Both however use military force to put pressure on the western powers, who wish to avoid war to get what they want in imperialistically. Mussolini invades Abyssinian and then receives a piece from the League of Nations. Hitler too, used military force especially in the aspect of Czechoslovakia to gain the upper hand on the Munich Conference table (meeting of Italy, England, France, and Germany) and gained Sudetenland. Therefore all in all, it was through the use of militarism, that imperialism could be used to continue on the nationalistic foreign policies of Mussolini and Hitler.

In the case of Hitler, it can be argued that what he pursued was in fact not imperialism but simply war. Imperialism is usually only argued for countries which are expanding outside of their countries. This would then work in the idea of Mussolini since he wanted colonies outside of the European continent.

From a political viewpoint, Hitler and Mussolini pursued political strength and in order to have more influence over the negotiating table, they wanted to have more land. Thus the strength of imperialism and militarism was needed. From a Marxism stand point, there was no reason at all for these focuses on imperialism and nationalism since all borders would soon dissolve for one united people, the working people. Thus the struggle of Mussolini and Hitler for more land, more power, was simply pointless.

The foreign policies of Mussolini and Hitler, mostly motivated by Nationalism, then continued on to use alliances in exchange for areas were imperialism and militarism failed.

Hitler wanted ‘Lebensraum’ (living space) for his German people. To that, his racial theories of the Aryan race caused great dislike for Eastern countries. While it can be argued, Hitler’s main goal towards the east was Russia. However a two front war had proven catastrophic for Germany in WWI. To that, the need for an ally was stronger to the years leading up to WWII then the main goal. For Hitler, alliances were only for the moment, “scraps of paper” as he would famously call the agreement between England and Germany at Munich.

One most important use of alliances, were militarism and imperialism served impossible at the time was the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Hitler wanted to gain Poland, and Stalin wanted to keep Germany from Russia’s throat. Both were happy, for the most part. Although Hitler’s nationalistic foreign policy aims focused on expansion to the east, there was no way he could risk a war with Russia yet. Hitler, while he may have been aiming for war, still hoped to gain as much land as he could by militarism and then political negotiations before total war was needed.

Mussolini also tried to use the work of alliances to in a way complete his foreign policies. A strong Italy alone could not stand long therefore he needed something to support him. To that, the more connections one had the more powerful one seemed. Allies could meet victory or defeat. However just like Hitler, Mussolini varied in his alliances. At first, with the Stresa Conference, it seemed as if Italy would side with Britain and France. A strong Stresa front against Germany. However this holding together with Britain, just like Germany with the Munich Conference, would not hold long. Britain wanted peace, Germany and Italy wanted expansion, and if war was needed they were open to it. To that it was Britain which often criticized Mussolini’s actions, just like the invasion of Abyssinia. In contrast Germany supported Italy. It was therefore only natural that the two countries would in the end join hand in hand in the Pact of Steel. This alliance worked since Mussolini had no wish to in anyway expand northwards, therefore this did not come into any conflict with his nationalistic foreign policy aims. The old former glory was focused on gaining colonies. Germany, too had no wish for Italian land. It was focused on the unity of the German race as well as expansion to the east.  Thus with the use of alliances, both countries could keep things politically under control until possible militaristic actions could be taken to fulfill the nationalistic foreign policy goals.

One could counter argue that Mussolini never considered alliances as a way to reach his goals. He saw it more as a needed method for being present in the world. If he could cut himself off and rule separately like the Roman emperor had done there would be no problem.

Hitler in contrast, it could be argued, saw alliances as the first mean to create a path for militarism, which then leads to imperialism. This can be seen by the actions he took to gain control of the Sudetenland. At first he seemed to ally himself with Britain, even signing the famous ‘scarp of paper’ at the Munich conference, declaring he had peaceful intentions, when he suddenly turned around, claimed the Sudetenland (politically legally) and invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia as well.

Using prosopography, history taught through the eyes of a common man, then the path Hitler was taking to lead Germany was very confusing. As a common man he wished to follow his leader, and if his leader saw it fit to make allies with Russia or Britain it was fine as long as the up swinging economy and life style stayed. From a militaristic standpoint, Mussolini used alliances for nothing more then to gain more power for himself militarily speaking. This meant making alliances with countries whose land Italy wanted was a hindrance to the nationalistic foreign policy goals.

 

Analyzing the foreign polices of Hitler and Mussolini and aligning them with each other is something we can do now. At the time, each was acting for their individual goals, and for them the similarities may not have been as apparent. There is also the problem that we ourselves were not there at the time. We cannot in any way know whether they were both really opportunists or not. We do not have the feeling of anxiety at the time. To that, my analyses may be off. I, limited to a few textbooks and my view (which could be biased and only reflect one standpoint) can limit this analyses. Even questioning their similarities and difference of Mussolini’s foreign policy and Hitler’s can already cause complication. All we have to go on are the few things left behind.

Looking at the events mentioned above, it is possible to see that until 1939, the foreign policies of Hitler and Mussolini were both mainly motivated by nationalism using the means of militarism, imperialism, and alliances to enforce these nationalistic foreign policies. Nationalistic aims included bringing glory for their countries, economic strength, and expansion. It is of course hard to say who influenced who. Both living at the same time they may have subconsciously influenced each other. However what each leader wanted was clear, and how they went about it is clear as well. While it may be true to state that had it not been for the policy of Appeasement and the Failure of the League neither Hitler nor Mussolini had have gotten so far, there is no way we can ever be sure. We can only look at what facts we have and try to formulate our own opinions. 

Why were Germany and her Allies unsuccessful in WWI?

Germany’s downfall along with that of her Allies in WWI happened fairly rapidly, although this may have not seemed the case to the men fighting the War. However the German High Command knew that the end was nearing. Although some did not want to admit it, but the German fighting machine was chocking out its last few attempts at survival. Still with the “Black Day of the German Army”, the outflanking of the Hindenburg line and the taking of 100,000 German soldiers prisoners, it was clear to Hindenburg and Ludendorff that the end was nearing. Yet what had caused this huge failure of Germany and her allies? It is clear that from the very beginning the idea of the war was corrupted by a mislead government, politically unfit and unsound to lead a war, which in turn affected military, economic and social sides of Germany, irreplaceably important towards the war effort. Since the leadership of a country could not cooperate nor judge its enemies correctly, it poisoned all other pathways for any sort of functioning Germany or its allies.

One main problem with the idea of questioning what caused Germany’s failure is of course the fact that it is still possible that we do not have all the information, and to the fact I am limited to my own cultural view. Of course, for some, the German army never lost WWI and therefore this question is out of discussion. Also, the allies might not even have wanted Germany to win towards the end, which is totally based on the countries opinions. Still it can be argued that had it not been for Germany’s catastrophic political leadership, the areas of military, economics, and social may never even have been affected.

Political problems within the structure and leadership of Germany existed already before WWI, although this did not become evident until Germany went into War. German government was set up in a way that if Germany went to war, the Kaiser who controlled every other aspect of German affairs, would give the reigns to German Generals. This created several problems politically. Suddenly the head of the government was not in control anymore of his people, in a way the Generals were and they lead the war the ways they set fit. This therefore lead to people running the state which were not set on the well-being of the people and country but more in the sense of winning a war.

Another political issued which formed was the fact that the German government did not tax its people. Structurally this idea was never implemented in the German system, for one reason or another. However in war times, such a crucial side to be able to lead a functioning political body was important. Unused to such an idea, implementing tax during a war time, where people were already suffering would be irresponsible and showed the short-sightedness of the German politicians.

To that the German government also had no system in which it analyzed or handled the International Community with could also have bad effects on military, economy and social aspects of Germany.

With the main political problems mentioned above, these then had negative effects on the military aspects of Germany.

With the generals leading the war, they were overconfident in their War machine and therefore were sure any war attempted with France or Russia, would be easily won. Why should they not think this? Evidence in history showed that France and Russia were easy targets. Only a few decades earlier, Prussia had defeated France and taken over Paris in a number of days. Why should Germany not be able to do the same again? The same went for Russia as well. In the Russo-Japanese war, the country with the most human resources had been defeated by an island nation. In the eyes of the politicians and generals in Germany, it would be laughable not to be able to defeat them. To that, Germany was already more mobilized and prepared than any other country, as far as the Germans could see. During the Race of Industrialization, Germany had pulled through and followed well, even pulling out their own navy. What could possibly stop them now?

It is through these factors mentioned above that the birth of the Von Schleiffen Plan took place, under the overconfident eyes of the leaders of Germany. A two front war would not be a problem with weak enemies such as Russia and France. However another factor the German politicians did not consider was the resistance of Belgium and the quick reaction of England towards this violation of a neutral country. Again the German leadership had over exceeded itself by being unable to interpret international countries correctly.

It is also the lack of insight of the German political side that Allies such as the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary were taken. The Ottoman Empire had crippling strikes within itself and therefore was called the “Sick Man of Europe.” This did not actually strengthen military power, but actually weakened it, due to the fact that often the German army would have to come to the aid of its allies, and fighting a two front border already, this was too much to handle as well.

Another political lack of foresight which caused military problems was that of the effects of the Zimmermann Telegram, inciting Mexico to attack the U.S., and the unrestricted submarine warfare on the USA. By not accepting the possibilities of what such a telegram could mean to the U.S. if intercepted was not thought through. Neither was the fact that sinking American ships with civilians, or at least what could be possible civilians, thought maybe a too provoking act. In this way, the German politicians did not know how to use propaganda nor did they know how to play America in any way to their side, or at least to neutrality.

As counterargument, one could say that the German leaders had no way of knowing that the USA would enter the war, even if they intercepted the Zimmermann Telegram. This was of course totally based on observation. One could also argue that Germany was not overconfident of itself and underestimated its enemies, but factually saw the weakness of their enemies as facts. Therefore it only made sense that a plan as ambitious and simple as the Von Schleiffen Plan would work. This of course is perfect speculation since we cannot know the full scale feeling of the time.

From a prosopographic view, it was natural for the stronger country to invade weaker countries, as any common man in Germany would view France. To that, for them, the killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand had to be brought to justice and if this involved going to war so be it.

With the political problems bleeding into military decisions and affecting the war in grand scale, these actions also influenced the economy of Germany greatly.

With the Generals having unrestricted control over the countries resources, the war was soon led without thinking of the civilian population. This therefore went that the political leaders did not coordinate the military and the home front economy at all. Having built up the German economy mostly on war goods, a suddenly new implemented German Government Office known as the War Materials Office started deciding which companies produced war goods and which did not. They also decided who would fight and who would stay to work in the factories. This could only cause economic problems.

Suddenly companies where being paid by the government to produce war goods, therefore their production rate went up. However since the same company was producing materials for war, their workers also did not get taken from them for the war effort.

In contrast other companies not working for the war effort are suddenly having less circulation of goods while their workers are being taken for the war. Trying to clean up such a system once it has been implemented by the government is almost impossible, and the problems which arise from this set up does not become apparent to the German government until too late. German politics, without realizing the effects of letting generals run the government, had suddenly started ruining their own economy.

However the problems continue. Since the German government did not tax its people, the few companies who were making huge profits, did not aid the German economy or government funds at all. This also had therefore negative effects on how to finance the War. Simply put, we suddenly have unlimited war profits and the German government does not even take part in it! Thus the German government can only cover 15 percent of its costs, while in comparison England can cover almost twice that number.

Here again we see the problem of the German political structures. With it not using political possibilities available to it, it starts to affect the economic situation of Germany as well as its military side.

To level off the suddenly rising costs, the German government also does something which in long term is crippling: it starts to print money. Inflation ensues, which again affects the economy negatively. This lasting effect reaches all the way to the German government during the Inter-War period were it becomes dependant on USA loans.

German political actions had started to crippled the German economy, which in itself was very important for Germany’s military success. Suddenly, German politicians were faced with the problem of where to support its army from and with what?

The idea of German politics leading to economic problems can be challenged by the fact that since Germany had always never taxed its people, how should it know to start now, during the war? As well is the lasting effect of the printing of German money: politicians could not know the effect of such an action in 10 to 20 years.

From a cliometric perspective, Germany lost the war due to the failing home front economy, which could only lead to Germany being unable to finance its huge army. Factories begun to go bankrupt in answer to the bad economy and this downfall*of the economy at this moment, lead to the issues faced by the international community of the Interwar period as well as the beginning of World War II.

With the political leadership unable to solve the rising economic problems and is loosing the war, the social impact is strongly negative, molding the mindset of Germans for the next decade.

The people of Germany had always been proud of their Kaiser and of their government. However suddenly, people were suffering: famine and unemployment ensued. What was the reason for this? The German government. Therefore, suddenly people began to mistrust the German government system of a Kaiser. If the Kaiser let the generals run loose and destroy the German economy, why should the people continue to tolerate this government?

This in a way, brought forth the social breaking of Germany with the Kaiser and the political structure of the time. Without food and without work, the people decided to break away from the norm. This was one huge social change brought forth by the bad leadership of Germany.

It was the bad handling of International affairs by the German government, that USA enter the war, and with that, suddenly a huge enemy loomed at their gates. To that, with the Battle of Jutland, a stalemate between German and British navy, German population began to starve under the blockade and economic problems. With German politicians unable to find a solution to the problem, this blockade is kept up by the Allies even during the negations of 1919 and not until the Treaty of Versailles is signed do they lift it. German population starved which again reflected negatively on the relations between the government and its people.

Another change socially was that of the breaking away from German traditions. We can see this better during the Interwar period, but Germany began to blossom into something which wanted to break loose from its old bonds.

One could argue that in effect the society in itself would have broken from the government anyway since the war was lost. Even if the German government had not created all these problems within the country (unemployment, rising inflation) perhaps the German population would not have acted as negatively towards the Kaiser and gotten rid of him.

One could also say that the German nationalistic pride was more hurt by the fact that they had to go through all that suffering and then loosing the war, that they broke with German traditions. One can never be sure.

From a counterfactual view, what if the German society had not shunned the Kaiser? Would this still have caused the huge social change over the next decade? To that, would Germany have fallen had the Kaiser actually controlled his generals instead of letting them have free-reign?

It is clear that the question of why Germany and its Allies lost the war is perfectly based on opinions, why exactly could be because of all of multiple factors combined. For some, military decisions may be the main reason why Germany collapsed, for other it may even be economic. However, what can be said is that multiple factors affected Germany and its allies which turned the table in the favor of England, France, etc. It is clear though that the loosing of WWI by Germany lead to its turbulent years of Interwar Period and to WWII.

Analyze the Ways in which the First World War was fought

War has existed ever since we can remember. In the beginning they were small skirmishes, growing to become famous battles, and then leading to wars such as the First and Second World War. However the ways we fight nowadays compared to back in the ages is immensely different. World War I can be analyzed for so many different things, but its most obvious aspect is that of Warfare. In a way, World War I brought forth totally new sides to war causing huge changes in the way war is fought, the birth of propaganda, and the concept of Total War.

Analyzing the actual way the Great War was fought always brings forth speculations. Why are we actually asking ourselves this? I believe in a way we believe that World War I totally changed the way we look at warfare, however this could be challenged. Perhaps it was not the war itself which makes us so different nowadays but the actual actions the people took under the war.

However it is clear that the First Great War’s fighting had many impacts on later wars, especially World War II.

Looking at one aspect which World War I influenced, this includes the actual technical aspect of war, such as weapons and the way battles were fought. In the beginning there was the machine gun. This new weapon enabled a single man to shoot multiple bullets at a time, enabling him to mow down several people in one go. Sudden charges of huge masses of men had lost their effects. This continues with the tanks and artillery. Although horses where still used to pull the artillery, the actual effect of a horse rider versus artillery or a machine gun were close to zero.

Another invention which in the beginning was looked down upon was the tank. For qhen they were launched they were close to useless. Cramped in tiny spaces, soldiers would often become sick from the fumes of the engine, not to forget that often the tanks would not even move or turn on. However, with the idea of an armored car, the basis was founded for the rise of the great tank divisions of Germany in World War II.

Also, suddenly camouflage became important to soldiers. With fast guns, an easily spotted target would not live long. Therefore it became more and more important to blend in with the surroundings. The red pants of the French were soon to their disadvantage as they were easily to spot. This had never been of such importance before as in WWI.

The newest and most horrifying invention of warfare however was the trench warfare and its follower: poisonous gas. Without being able to outflank each other, the Germans began to dig in trenches in order to put up a hard line to overrun. Soon men were rotting away in cold, rat ridden trenches. The fast pacing battles were practically over now. Instead men fought over meters of land.

Poisonous gas, first used in the Battle of Ypres by the Germans, only served to escalate the misery of trench warfare. It served no purpose other then to kill the enemy in masses, causing totally new aspects of warfare to open. This had not come before World War I.

Arguing the idea of change of warfare due to World War I, one should not forget that although many new weapons and ways of war were brought forth, horses and cavalry were still present within the First Great War and were used a lot on the Eastern Fronts. Therefore new inventions did not totally flush out the old. To that, the mechanization of the army already started before World War I, with the invention of guns and artillery. It is only with the escalation of WWI that this went to such extreme measures.

Looking at the new warfare from a Militaristic point of view, the new warfare started a totally new epoch within war, something which could perhaps later be called Total War, (discussed more later) in the respect of the aspect of killing people. From a counterfactual standpoint, one would question whether World War I would have been so terrible and cost so many lives if none of the technical war changes would have been made? Would WWI even be discussed as much without the technological changes?

Another aspect of war which changed during World War I was how to gain the support of the people, how to recruit men, and how to incite women to work. This new method became propaganda. Propaganda was a mean to control the masses of a country. While each side used propaganda, each however was effective on different levels, such as Adolf Hitler states in his work “Mein Kampf”.

The British clearly made the Germans figures out of horror stories calling them Huns, and saying they raped and mutilated Belgium which made the British folk stand behind its government. Not only that but it caused men to be ready for the horrors of the war.

However the Germans in contrast, by actually making the English look insignificant and weak, caused the exact opposite effect upon their soldiers. Suddenly a German soldier felt like its fatherland was lying to him and that the war was for nothing. Propaganda soon had huge effects upon the moral of men, which again changed the way a war had been fought.

Propaganda also could be used to gain allies. A good example of this is England’s manipulation of America through the Transatlantic Cable by telling them horror stories of how the “Huns” of Germany misused “innocent little” Belgium. This could been seen on posters of propaganda everywhere, in movies, and even in art pieces. The power of propaganda can be seen especially well in movies of the time as well. When Britain brought forth actual filmings of the front to its people without realizing that the showing of men dying in masses could have negative effects on the moral, we can gain a small glimpse on how propaganda can backfire and yet how much mass of people it actual effects.

However it was through this propaganda that World War I was able to spread throughout the ranks of society, even inciting school teachers (who had almost never before marched to war) to grab their gun and enter the army. War was no longer just for the professional army men but also for farmers, workers, etc. Propaganda also enabled the country to use its women as labor workers in factories, working for days on end to help their men at the front.

One could argue however that the effect of propaganda was not as huge in World War I as in World War II. To that, propaganda had existed in small amounts before World War I and was therefore not just an invention of the First Great War. Propaganda also has its limits, for like Hitler stated in his analysis, propaganda is limited to the least cleverest in society. Therefore propaganda, no matter how much effect it had, it could not effect everyone.

Looking at the birth of propaganda in WWI from a Women Historian view, women suddenly were also involved in war. While they have been so in limited amounts before, they suddenly had become the driving labor force. With propaganda inciting women to work the hardest they can for their men, and also seeing the horrors men had to face out their in the fields upon propaganda movies, this incited women to work hard for their country as nurses, factory laborers and whatnot.

A revisionist would see propaganda as a new field opened within society where the government suddenly possessed a tool which they could use effectively to manipulate and control its people. This also gave birth to the even larger usage of propaganda during World War II, especially by Hitler.

The third aspect which the new ways WWI was fought gave rise to is the concept of total war. Total war uses all resources of a country, including natural resources as well as human resources. Suddenly huge amounts of soldiers like never before were required. Citizens were also suddenly involved as well, often acting as side victims to war. Even women, like stated in the before paragraph, became used more and more. Not only that but resource such as food, iron, etc. where used to a countries limit amounts. Colonies became very important in order to provide the substances needed for a country to endure in the war, be it food or humans. Suddenly war was no longer a side effect for a country. Instead everything went into one single purpose: war.

With the concept of total war, men could no longer fight without the support of the homeland. This is one of the reasons why women, even in the worst conditions continued in producing shells. They knew that the men in the front needed shells to survive. No matter that the women began to be poisoned by TNT and soon began to be nicknamed “canaries”, women fought onwards for their men.

Another aspect of Total War seen within World War I is the actual involvement of the citizens. With the bombardment of London by Zeppelins, it was no wonder that innocent bystanders would be killed, such as Jay Winter states, a kindergarten. War no longer involved only men at certain battle fields far away from main cities. Instead, it became the actual horror of every person within the country, no matter whether old or young.

Total War was born through the new technologies (since through them new resources where needed such as shells) but also propaganda caused the spread of total war. Before, war was seen as something a king was holding with another country and it did not really affect the citizens as much as it did the professional knights. Perhaps there were higher taxes and less food but not the big involvement such as in World War I, stirred up by propaganda. Ignoring posters and movies everybody else was watching became practically impossible.

A good example of total war was DORA of the British. Acting as the Defense of the Realm Act, the society and resources was suddenly perfectly controlled. Bread was prohibited from being fed to animals, instead to be saved for the army. Gold and silver could not be melted down, etc. The country suddenly started to control the resources more and more to ensure everything was used for the war and to keep any rumors from spreading since this also could hurt the war.

As a counterargument, looking at Napoleon for example, countries had always invaded other countries and then used their resources. Otherwise it was practically impossible to feed larger armies. To that new stage in war for each new epoch was seen as the horror of the time. Therefore in a twisted sort of way, Total War was simply a new invention seen as something totally horrific when it actually also had its positive sides.

From a Militaristic standpoint, the concept of Total war is the idea of just war: the killing of people, new weapons and new strategies of war. It has nothing at all to do with the economic or social aspects of total war.

Prosopography would say that with total war, the common man became an active participant, opinion, and voice within the war, therefore being able to fully state what Total War is. Seen from the eyes of the common people therefore, Total War was horrible since innocent people without defense were being killed at the time, and the people who wanted nothing to do with the war, had to suddenly produced huge amounts of weapons.

All in all, World War I was the beginning of a totally new way of fighting. Still why would we analyze the fighting of WWI? Even with the huge changes which where brought with World War I (such as propaganda, tanks, etc.), how is this in any way significant? When looking at the First Great War using our sense perception and reasoning, we could say that in a way, it shaped all the later wars, especially World War II. In a twisted way, without understanding the origins of WWI and its inventions, there is no way to understand WWII. To that, reason tells us that no matter how insignificant something is within society at the time (which World War I certainly wasn’t) it still will have an effect on our society today. *** With using our four ways of knowing from TOK, we can learn to understand exactly how the war changed the times then and now.

With World War I everything changed. It was no longer just professional soldiers marching out to battle fields but also scholars and headmasters, and even in a metaphorical sense: women. Not only that but World War I also brought forth totally new sides to war causing huge changes in the way war is fought, the birth of propaganda, and the concept of Total War.

With the new ways of fighting, new weapons begun to be used. While horses and cavalry still existed and where used in multiple numbers, they now where backed-up by artillery or could not be used at all, like in the trenches. Propaganda, lead to the including of civilians and making a war not only the business of kings and rulers. With these two things, World War I was able to give rise to something totally new and shocking of the age: Total War. With it, the war had suddenly reached no more limits. No matter who, they could die, and no matter what, it had to be used for the success of the army. The world didn’t care anymore what the limits where, it just kept on fighting.

The Leading Factor for the Start of World War I

World War I will forever be studied as a huge impact upon our society today. Not only did it teach us to work together, but it also showed us what such a war is capable of. Lives were thrown away in trenches, as men in powerful positions dictated over there fate. The world, affected by World War II as well, decided never again.

However, what was the actual reason for the start of World War I? Each country has come up with its own answer as it deems fit. Nevertheless, such a question can never be fully answered due to the simple fact that we were not there at the time. Perhaps we can make assumptions, still, it was in the past, were the mind set was different, were each country thought for itself. Often the main factors for the war are considered to be imperialism, militarism and alliances; however it is clear that all three factors sprung forth from one main cause: nationalism. With the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the final spark was added to cause nationalism to overflow. Through the strong tensions between the countries, along with hastily pledged alliances, no one could have kept the situation not to escalate, since all of Europe was in the same boat. War had become inevitable.

Nationalism is often closely linked to militarism and thus it is clear that one caused the other. For the people, the military embodied the muscles of a nation, thus the bigger, the greater the pride. With the development of Industrialization, each country began to stock up with soldiers and strategic plans. It was a deadly cycle, were one country pulled the others along.

First off, it is clear that this race of stocking up the army better then the other country could not have happened without Industrialization. Countries needed their steel industries in order to outshine the other. Thus in a way, without the actual development of working with steel and burning coal, countries never could have created murder weapons in such mass quantity.

However, Germany with its fast growing steel industry wanted a greater, better navy in order to compete with England. Thus it passed the German Naval Law of 1900. This was a plan for stocking up on boats over several years, which cast a clear signal to other countries: we are ready to compete with you. While this is a military act, it was motivated clearly by nationalism, to show others the greatness of Germany.

Still as much as Germany tried, it never rose to the standard of the English. This was clearly shown by the invention of the Dreadnought by England. Being one of the first real battleships, it contained thick walls of steel and multiple guns. No boat could compete with something like that. Germany again was behind in the naval stock up.

However, while the stocking up of armies continued, so did the tactics. It was with the Von Schleiffen Plan and the French “Plan 17” that a war was being shaped. In order to protect ones country, each army felt it was their duty to create a strategy to survive. One does create a plan and build boats if one does not plan on using them. The German Von Schleiffen Plan was Germany’s ticket to victory. It believed that if it attacked France swiftly first through Belgium and won, it could focus all its power on the eastern front against Russia.

France’s answer to this plan, though we do not know whether they knew the existence of the German plan, was the Plan 17. Although this was not a fixed military strategy it outlined a plan of mobilization if Germany did attack. This again was a military act, with the purpose to defend ones country, ones own people. This in itself is a Nationalistic idea.

Of course one could claim that each of these plans was actually not in the purpose of nationalism but just an act to modernize the military. Perhaps the goal was to aid others in their fight for freedom. This could be support with the Kruger Telegram, where Kaiser Wilhelm II congratulates the President of Transvaal in defeating England. As a new power perhaps Germany wished to support other countries in their rise to power and freedom. Following this one could argue that through the German feeling of encirclement, with Russia, England and France hostile to her, perhaps Germany just wanted to feel saver with a plan. However this is just one way of looking at it.

From a militaristic point of view, Germany had stocked up against a war with the newest technology, considering the possibility that a war may come and had outlined a strategic plan. A revisionist such as Sidney B. Fay, would consider Germany’s actions in defense of itself, but never had had the actual intensions of causing or being within a European War.

Looking back, it can be said that through strong nationalistic feelings, militarism thrived. Thus it was not the military by itself which starting stocking for war, but the actual fear that the home country could be over run and thus lose ones national pride.

With the strengthening of the army, national pride became apparent. But how could this new power be tested and shown to the world? This is where imperialism begun to take shape within the nationalistic ideals. Although imperialism had been building for centuries it had originally begun to form through the pride of nations and the urge to show the world their greatness. Countries started to compete for the international power in events such as the Fashoda Incident, Suez Canal, and the Second Moroccan Crisis. Nationalism did not stop before borders, but instead hastened its followers to carry it farther and farther into the world. The Scramble for Africa had become a chess board where each power could show off its country’s skills.

Taking the Fashoda Incident, it becomes clear that although countries which had been viewed as potential allies, were actually hostile to each other when it came to their imperialistic values. England wanting a British Africa from Cape to Cairo, would do anything to gain Egypt. However France had a similar dream only this time from Morocco eastwards. Thus the two countries met at Fashoda, Egyptian Sudan and it soon became clear: Britain was prepared to go to war. England did in the end reach its dream and won Fashoda thus making the imperialistic dream all the more true. However this would harden the relationships between all European countries for a while. England was the most powerful imperialistic power, what nation with strong nationalistic feelings would accept this easily?

England while gaining its Africa from Cape to Cairo, also had the Suez Canal. Although at first it had been French, it still was the lifeline to India, were spices and riches awaited. With England buying the Canal, it again made a huge leap in its imperialism causing the English to increase the view of themselves and that they were unbeatable. National pride was bound to happen.

France and Germany also had their disputes during the Scramble for Africa. Germany wanting to show off its power in the world often angered other countries. With the Agadir Crisis, Germany showed that she, a small, yet imperialistic power could attack the port of Agadir and threaten France over its power in Morocco. Both countries wanted to spread the glamour of their nation however those who opposed them were not to be seen in a favorable light.

Each imperialistic act was motivated by a nationalistic one. One could claim that Imperialism had more to with Industrialization, since each country needed more resources to continue growing however, while this may have been a side cause, it was not the main cause. Taking the Opium Wars in China for example, Britain was of course greatly interested in the actual opium and wanted China to continue buying it however Britain’s main dream was to actually control most of the globe. May “the sun never set on the British Empire.” Thus getting into a war with China gave Britain even more influence in Asia. The Kingdom had its foot in the door.

Through a cliometric point of view, Imperialism was the way for countries to gain wealth and build their economies. Without expanding their borders, they never could have accumulated the wealth that they did. One could also say that Nationalism, through Imperialism, gave itself the needed money to continue building a nation’s splendor.

From another viewpoint, a counterfactualist would question that what if the European nations had not started to expand their imperialism, would the nationalistic pride been contained? With the nationalistic pride contained, would a World War I have happened?

Imperialism leaves a lot of questions open, but it certainly helped strengthen Nationalistic pride within countries and thus was a clear factor for Nationalism and through that World War I.

Another nationalistic influenced factor were the alliances during the 1880’s and 1900’s. They in themselves had a huge impact on the political methods of countries, especially being affected by the vague methods of politicians, the interests of the countries, and the family ties. Each alliance was made in the pride of nationalism, making sure that those which belonged to their folk, and their folk alone would be within their circle of trust. Why did Germany never hastened for an alliance with France but instead angered it more day by day? The pride of the German nation was clear: citizens of Alsace and Lorraine are Germans, they should have no connections to France. However it was not just the claiming of Alsace and Loraine that fired forth the breaking and making of alliances.

Each country had its own to protect. Germany wanted to unite all German speaking people under one banner. However it was not just Germany who did this. Russia made it clear from the start that it would support the Slavic People. For with them it felt itself greatly related. How else would the USSR be formed in the later years?

While the support of Russia for the Slavic People was clear, what was not so clear was Sir Edward Grey’s support of France. Although as British foreign minister, he always said he would support France, he was never backed up by the cabinet. Thus the Germans did not deem the statement important. However the alliance stood, hidden in the shadows. Although England never said it went to war in defense of France, this was one of their main reasons. Belgium was just a cover to hide the prideful nationalistic feeling which were angered that Germany had dared to attack a British ally. The English were shocked that such a fresh power would think itself powerful enough against an old power. Although the British hid it well, nationalistic feelings, shown through alliances caused them to come to the “defense” of Belgium.

Another country which made alliances in favor of its Nationalistic ideals was Germany. Austria-Hungary was a part German speaking country. Thus Germany believed to support its fellow German speaking partner. Through the issuing of the Blank Cheque, Germany said simply, what our fellow people, the Austrian-Hungarians do, is the right thing, and represents the ideals of the German people. In a way, Germany put itself right in the middle and said this is where we stand. An alliance forged over nationalistic views that the people of one culture should stand together.

Looking at the Dreikaiserbund, one must question the idea of alliances being based on nationalism. How can a pact between Germany, Austira-Hungary, and Russia happen? Russia who supports the Slavic People and had every intention on breaking up the states under Austria-Hungary? Well, it was all in the interest of the countries again. Each thought that they could gain from the pact in a nationalistic order. Austria-Hungary and Russia both had their eyes fixated on Eastern Europe, both thinking that acting as an ally of the other could bring them their priced possession. Germany also saw its chance on brining down its archenemy France, thus again boosting its national confidence. However as we know, it didn’t end up that way and thus even though it was tried again, the Dreikaiserbund failed. Looking at the alliances from different points of view, more support can be found for alliances being a sub-factor under nationalism.

From a revisionist point of view, such as Lawrence Lafore, if Britain had clearly stated that it would support France and go to war if she was attacked then for sure Germany would not have supported Austria so greatly against Serbia. A revisionist clearly sees that had people been more open about their loyalties whether to their own or another then World War I may have been preventable.

Through the eyes of the common English man (prosopography), Germany had every intention of over taking England, however England was acting honorably by coming to the defense of the invasion of neutral Britain. As Germany had not honored the request of not invading Belgium, Britain must come in the defense of the innocent (like stated in the Daily Mirror of the 4^th of August 19140).

For the nations, alliances were made with those who had the same thoughts, cultures, and goals as them. This meant that any country who was an ally of another had to live up to the expectations of the other in order to be an ally of their country. When it comes down to the roots, nationalism again surfaces.

What about nationalism standing by itself? As a leading factor, did it ever surface just on its own? When looking closely, nationalism not only was the main leading factor for world war one but also the most relevant and closest to the start of World War I. With the building of the Black Hand, which caused the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, which then led to the Austrian-Hungarian Ultimatum to Serbia, no other cause was so close to the actual beginning of World War I then nationalism.

The Black Hand had been building through decades, said to have been organized by the Serbian military and deeply involved in their government. However the Black Hand formed in order to free other Slavic states from the control of Austria-Hungary and create a unified Slavic Folk. Thus the nationalistic pride here is evident again. However, the Black Hand is also seen as the responsible for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by its member: Gavril Principle. Through the death of the next leader of Austria-Hungary, the pride of the Austrian-Hungarians was greatly hurt and caused great grief to break out.

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is always seen as the opening event of World War I. Through it Austria-Hungary was able to issue its Ultimatum to Serbia, which if not accepted would lead to a war. That Austria-Hungary extra wrote the Ultimatum so that Serbia could not accept it, is speculation, or if true then again underlines the Nationalistic pride of Austria-Hungary. Nationalism though clearly was the reason for the Archduke’s death which then caused the raging answer of war.

Of course nationalism alone could never have caused World War I. Without an army, allies or imperialism (wealth), nations such as England and Germany never would have had the power to go to war on such a scale. Therefore one can only counterclaim that by itself nationalism is nothing but a thought process. However this thought process caused militarism, imperialism, and alliance to rise to totally new levels.

Through the view of a revisionist such as Franz Fischer, Germany through its pride, deliberately set out for a war and had always planned one. This could be supported by Bismarck’s actions and strategic plans such as the Von Schleiffen Plan. However Fischer’s ideas are the most controversial theories due to the fact that he himself was German and an active member of the Nazi Party. Still, nationalism even by Fischer, was the main cause for World War I.

However why do we try so fervently to find the reasons for World War I? What is the value of studying it? Well from the very beginning it is clear we must learn from our mistakes. It must become clear to us what must have caused the war. While we can never be sure, we can try to make assumptions in order to avoid them in the future. Looking at it from a TOK perspective, through reason and logic we can find what caused World War I. Once we have come to an agreement, let’s say Nationalism as the main reason, then using sense perception, emotion and language, we can try and bring this to all areas of our learning in order to avoid future wars.

However in order to do this we must make a lot of assumptions. In order for us to answer this question we must assume that we know the mind set of the time, (which we cannot know for sure) all the events, and problems of the time. Also, believing that only one reason is a cause for World War I is something unrealistic. But we can say that one cause caused all the other causes or at the very least influenced them.

Using the Socratic Method we can still try however to eliminate all other possibilities until we cannot find one exception for it, or not that many exceptions to it. This method gives us the right to eliminate other possibilities and strengthen others. Still World War I will most probably stay an enigma for the rest of our time.

Albert Einstein once said, “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” And he was right, for like the plague, it spread itself through the system of nations, affecting each and every part of their governing. How would the 1900’s have been different without nationalism? One thing is clear though that nationalism affected each area which can be considered a main cause for World War I therefore making it the main cause. For if looked at closely, nationalism caused an expansion of militarism, bringing forth more and more power for one country. With the military fully capable, militarism together with nationalism caused the boom of imperialism. With now an empire throughout the world, a great military and nationalistic pride, countries began to look for more land closer to home, and what better way was there then an alliance. However, the countries became too power hungry as it often happens and could not see the borders anymore. Nationalism poisoned each and every part of the new dawning age. With industrialization, nationalism received the method to take over and cause not only one but two terrible wars. How could one have stopped such a fast spreading of the disease when it is a silent shadow? At least the world, with World War I and II, has gained the knowledge never to try another World War, and hopefully one day, not to cause any more wars at all. However, only the people scared of the footprints will not tread that path. “Vestigia terrent.”

Footnotes:

“Vestigia terrent” is a famous quote from the Roman Poet Horace with the meaning, “the footprints frighten me”.

Reflective Question 1

Given that this is a work of historical fiction, is there any piece of it that can be considered factual? Can it be used in any way to study history?

Although the book All Quiet on the Western Front can be seen as a historical work of fiction, there are still aspects of the book which can be seen as factual. Despite the absence of hard cold facts, as in the when or where, the actual emotional feelings and technical aspects of war are greatly depicted within the book. As stated in the Rites of Spring, “To demonstrate the significance of the Great War, one must of course deal with the interests and emotions involved in it.” (Eksteins xiv)

History, as far as I have learned it and seen it through my father’s eyes, lays great value in facts and dates. However I believe that is not the point of history. “Most history of warfare has been written with a narrow focus on strategy, weaponry, and organization, on generals, tanks, and politicians.” (Eksteins xv) But what about the people of the time, the for a lifetime scarred soldiers? Are they not often forgotten after the glory filled victory?

That is why I believe this book focuses its facts on the emotions and customs of the time. Sometimes one can even find a typical fact, such as, “…the whole length of the front from the Vosges to Flanders.” (Remarque 281) But mostly this book focuses on that that tends to be forgotten. Still there is no reason why this book cannot be used to teach and study history.

For example within the book we get a clear insight on the different levels of military discipline and how much the common soldier hates the war. Paul Bäumer, the protagonist in our book, makes the unpleasant mistake of not saluting a Major. “You think you can bring your front-line manners here, what? Well, we don’t stand for that sort of thing. Thank God, we have discipline here! Twenty paces backwards, double march!”(Remarque 163)

Thus the book may not serf as a factual resource for dates and names, however it can be used to study the moral and feelings of a war, to know just how exactly it was back then. Even if it includes a bit of the writers fiction, it still catches the historical morale of the time. And as we can know that Erich Maria Remarque himself served during World War I, we can be quite sure that he knew how exactly how it was back then (Remarque 297).

To be quiet honest I think the best way to study is history is through these kinds of books. In a textbook about history, one gathers the reason, the facts, and the weapons. But when does one actual meet the horror of the whole war? For me, a history textbook seems like an opening to loads of knowledge, especially about ourselves, however the main part always seems to be lost behind a front of facts. Whatever happened to the people back then? How about the children, the mothers?

While All Quiet on the Western Front might not tell us of the main battles or the military strategies, it gives us an insight into how the men themselves experienced the war and how the people thought back then. And that certainly is very important when one is studying history.

Bibliography:

Brainy Quote. 2011. 22 July 2011<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/ history.html>.

Eksteins, Modris. Rites of Spring. New Tork: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989.

Remarque, Erich M. All Quiet on the Western Front. Trans. A.W. Wheen. New York:

Ballantine Books, 1928.

Reflective Question 2

History is generally taught through the eyes and experiences of “Great Men” and “Leaders” as opposed to considering the average citizen’s experiences. What are the possible impacts and implications of this process of teaching and studying history?

Since we mostly see history through the eyes of “Great Leaders”, the resulting effect can be quite disastrous. It is not the common soldiers who plans and hopes for war, but the leader of a country and thus we learn history through the calculated eyes of men who move wooden armies on maps, never once themselves on the actual battle field. While in the older days, leaders such as Napoleon, where at the actual front, nowadays, and during World War I, most leaders sit safely in their commanding posts. Thus the whole horror of such a war is greatly buffered.

In this way we actually see history through the eyes of the minority, since only few actual documents from the common folk reach or survive the different centuries. What does this make history? It seems thus that many of the facts we have gathered with such revere are actually only scratching the surface. What the great leader deemed as fit, his folk may have seen quite differently. A great way this is displayed is in All Quiet on the Western Front. “A word of command has made these silent figures our enemies; a word of command might transform them into our friends. At some table a document is signed by some persons whom none of us know, and then for years together that very crime on which formerly the world’s condemnation and severest penalty fall, become our highest aim.” (Remarque 193)

And it is quite true that the world still works this way to this day forward. However what do we learn through history this way? Nothing. A war seems like a simple declaration, a seal upon a paper and nothing more. Within dusty old textbooks, the war seems like a clean, sterile, and perfectly organized field, with glorified battles, and perfect victories. But through the eyes of the common folk it was not so.

If we look at the wars today, in Afghanistan or more recently in Libya, when do the news reporters interview the mothers, the children? What about the wounded soldiers? We can imagine the horrors but it does not reach us because all we get is the final report from the NATO in a very clean conference room. What happens is that when we learn history through the men who started it all, it is quiet clear we will never hear from the victims.

“But what I would like to know is whether there would not have been a war if the Kaiser had said no.” (Remarque 203) That is probably the question we all ask when we read a history textbook.

Bibliography:

Brainy Quote. 2011. 22 July 2011<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/ history.html>.

Eksteins, Modris. Rites of Spring. New Tork: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989.

Remarque, Erich M. All Quiet on the Western Front. Trans. A.W. Wheen. New York:

Ballantine Books, 1928.

Reflective Question 3

History is generally taught through the consideration of two opposing forces; black and white sides. What are the possible impacts and implications of this process of teaching and study history?

“History is written by the Victors,” is how Winston Churchill best described history and it is true (Brainy Quote). For how different would our world history look now if World War I had never happened? Or best yet if the Germans and Japanese had won World War II? However this did come about, for just as Winston said, it was England who was victorious and thus wrote the history. But this of course has a downside to it. For in history it will seem as if the “white” side, the “good” side won. But that is definitely not how the Germans saw it in either World War I or II. From the standpoint of the soldiers and the citizens, from us students nowadays, so far away from the actual events, how should we know which side was good and bad? Ideologies of the victorious side become the good side while the rest are seen as the black side.

But those fighting the war are the same people. When Paul gets stuck in the no man’s land with the dying French soldier, we can see the resemblance. “But now, for the first time, I see you are a man like me. I thought of your hand-grenades, of your bayonet, of your rifle; now I see your wife and your face and our fellowship. Forgive me, comrade.”(Remarque 223)

By splitting two armies into two opposing forces, already we are forgetting the many different reasons, the personal gains and wants which have led this far. To be quite true to history, it is never black and white. As Kropp, a friend of Paul, states, “We are here to protect our fatherland. And the French are over there to protect their fatherland. Now who’s in the right?”(Remarque 203)

That is a perfect reason as to why one cannot see the armies as black and white. Both are acting at the best interests for their land. The French think their in the right just like the Germans. So who can you call black and white here? By making armies black and white it seems as if the victors are trying to justify their wars to the later generations. The effect is that we, studying from our history textbooks learn that what the winning side wants us to see. But what does that tell about us? In a way history can never be seen just from one side. It seems as if Napoleon was right when he said, “What is history but a fable agreed upon?” (Brainy Quote)

Bibliography:

Brainy Quote. 2011. 22 July 2011<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/ history.html>.

Eksteins, Modris. Rites of Spring. New Tork: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989.

Remarque, Erich M. All Quiet on the Western Front. Trans. A.W. Wheen. New York:

Ballantine Books, 1928.